Features

Ultrafast or ultrashort pulse lasers offer unique material processing possibilities, because the laser’s pulse duration is less than the target material’s conduction time. Essentially this means that cold machining of parts is possible — with material being removed by sublimation. This vaporization machining method offers advantages that simply cannot be produced by any other processes, including near zero heat affect; minimal burring and debris, which reduces or eliminates post processing; high-dimensional accuracy; and the ability to produce high-quality small features in metals, plastics, ceramic, and glass. However, these systems are expensive, so the laser and system choice must be carefully considered.

Fig. 1 – A comparison of picosecond (PS) and femtosecond (FS) lasers machining a 100 μm wide channel in metal. Using a similar material removal method and cycle time, the FS laser produces cleaner edges and a smoother base.

Like so many other laser technologies, the ultrafast laser came to life in a research lab. However, it was not long before the ultrafast laser’s pulse duration (significantly shorter than commercially available nanosecond lasers), drove interest in its use for micro-machining and material processing. The ability to process almost any material with almost no heat signature offered a unique manufacturing tool that enables product innovation and development. In some cases, it even results in cost reduction.

Picosecond vs. Femtosecond Lasers

Ultrafast lasers are divided into two main categories. A picosecond (PS) laser emits optical pulses with a pulse duration around 10 picoseconds — just over one trillionth (10–12) of a second, or one millionth of a microsecond. A femtosecond (FS) laser emits pulses that are one around 400 femtoseconds, less than one trillionth of a second in duration.

It is worth noting that the term ultrafast does not refer to the material removal rate. In fact, quite the opposite is true, which is why these lasers excel at processing material thicknesses of less than 0.01 in. (250 μm). Thicker materials can be processed, but if so, one must consider cycle time more closely.

The processing differences between PS and FS lasers can in some instances be subtle and in others very apparent. When used to process metals, the difference is subtle; the FS laser offers zero topside burr with slightly better defined features and lower surface roughness. The FS laser can also process a greater range of plastics. PS lasers typically require green or ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths to process plastics effectively. Quality comparison between PS and FS is material dependent. When the absolute best quality is needed, FS is the clear choice. However, PS lasers tend to machine faster, so the question becomes, “How good is good enough for the process?”

Understanding which laser works best for the application can only be determined through parts testing. As part of defining the application and system, Amada Miyachi America typically runs samples on both FS and PS lasers and on multiple wavelengths for both lasers, as needed.

Fig. 2 – A comparison of blind drilling PET with picosecond IR (left) and picosecond UV (right). Processing time is the same; hole depth is three times better for picosecond UV, with less charring.

Analysis of the process quality, removal rates, and cycle time all need to be weighed carefully between the two lasers. The typical price of an ultrashort pulse system is in the range of $400,000 and above. So, before embarking down that road, users should clearly understand their return on investment so that they can justify the investment in terms of cost reduction, unique processing capabilities, or, in many cases, both. The final decision on which one to select is made after an iterative process, which usually includes a number of short runs of parts. Figure 1 compares PS and FS lasers machining a 100 -μm -wide channel in metal. Using a similar material removal method and cycle time, the FS laser produces cleaner edges and a smoother base.

Ultrafast Wavelength Choices

Both PS and FS lasers offer wavelength choices of infrared (IR), green (GR), and UV. Certain wavelengths work best for specific materials and/or one can also select the wavelength based on a particular feature size required. The smallest focus spot size achievable is directly related to the wavelength. Therefore, if all things are equal, a UV laser will focus to a spot size one-third the diameter of an IR laser. In this article, the wavelength is referred to by name (IR) rather by wavelength number (1030 nm), since different laser technologies operate at slightly different wavelengths.

Each of the FS and PS lasers can be offered with multiple wavelengths available from a single laser. This option is typically used more for research and development rather than production systems, where single wavelength point-of-use machines are used for a specific material and process. Examples of where different wavelengths matter includes picosecond IR for glass cutting and picosecond GR for medical plastics like PEBAX.

The use and argument for different wavelengths matched to different materials is less obvious for FS lasers. Many people originally thought that the normal absorption dependency to wavelength would no longer apply with such a short pulse duration, and that “multi-photon absorption” would dominate. This has not proven to be the case for certain plastics — polymer stents are a good example. Not only is the processing quality and cutting speed better using FS GR, but the processing window is also larger using green compared with IR. When machining small or blind features on plastics down to the micron level, the green wavelength can provide a more stable process.

Table 1 – Ultrafast laser wavelength comparison.

Figure 2 shows a comparison of blind drilling polyethylene terephthalate (PET) with picosecond IR (left) and picosecond UV (right). Processing time is the same; hole depth is three times better for picosecond UV, with less charring. The only reason to select a different wavelength for both PS and FS laser processing of metals would be for feature size. From a processing perspective, there is little difference between IR, GR, and UV. Table 1 provides a general overview of the best wavelength choice for particular materials.

Integration of Ultrafast Lasers

The key feature of the ultrafast laser is its ability to process material to high dimensional accuracy. Therefore, the first system requirement is to support that level of precision. However, all the best hardware in the world will not provide a stable system if the environment in which the system is placed is not stable — specifically for temperature variance. In the world of microns of precision, temperature variance beyond a few degrees will cause issues, not only to fixtures and stages, but also to the laser’s pointing stability. For example, each ºC degree of temperature change would change a 12-in. (300 mm) length of aluminum by 0.0003 in. (7 μm). Therefore, the machines need to be housed in a well-controlled and air conditioned space.

An ultrafast laser system is composed of several elements: the laser, an optical path to deliver the laser to the focusing optics, focus optics, motion, vision, debris control, and tooling. Each must be carefully considered as part of the optimal system solution.

The laser is guided to the focusing optics using mirrors and a variable beam expander, which provides flexibility in changing the beam diameter entering the focus optics and therefore the size of the focus spot. There are two reasons this is needed. First, each laser’s output is a little different, so unless the process was qualified with the exact same laser to be used with the system, the variable beam expander can be used to tune the final focus spot size. Second, mostly with regard to flexible setup machines, the variable beam expander can change the focus spot size for different applications.

« Start Prev 1 2 Next End»